Rifle Scopes Advice needed / Razor Gen II

[rjs5117]

I am new to precision shooting. I don't even own a "precision rifle". I currently own an AR-15 that I have built with a heavy profile 16" White Oak Armament 416R 1:7 223 Wylde barrel. It is currently wearing a Vortex PST Gen II 1-6x because I originally envisioned this rifle being in a 3 gun/ SPR role. However, I don't actually shoot 3 gun, and I also have an 11.5" AR pistol with an Aimpoint T-2 that better fills the roll of CQB type shooting. I find myself using my full size AR to shoot groups and dot drills at 100 yards, and 6x is inadequate for this.

I currently have access to only a 200 yard range, with most of my time being spent at 100 yards. However, in the next 12-18 months, I am planning to move to CO where true long range shooting will be realistic. At that point, I plan to build/buy a true precision rifle. So with that said, I'm thinking of selling my PST 1-6x and replacing it with the scope that will ultimately end up on my precision rifle (which I think will be a Razor Gen II 4-27). The plan would be to use this setup to work fundamentals as much as possible so that I have a solid baseline when I do get a bolt gun (which I want to be a buy once cry once affair).

My question is, in this instance, does it make sense to mount this scope on an AR with a 16" barrel? I understand that, long term, it makes no sense to have so much magnification on a gun with such a short barrel, but again, I'd be buying this scope to ultimately put on a long range bolt gun. My idea would be to use this setup to learn how to shoot as much as possible in the meantime with this platform, but also adhereing to the buy once cry once principle with the scope.

Thoughts? Suggestions? Should I just stick with the 1-6 and work fundamentals as much as possible at 1-200 yards? Another solution altogether?

 

[Andy T]

Replacing 1-6 would help in terms of getting comfortable with your reticle/turrets. If long range shooting is your long term goal, then it makes sense to get the 4-27.
Alternatively, why not keep 1-6 and buy 4-27?

 

[rjs5117]

Replacing 1-6 would help in terms of getting comfortable with your reticle/turrets. If long range shooting is your long term goal, then it makes sense to get the 4-27.
Alternatively, why not keep 1-6 and buy 4-27?

Ah, I forgot a key piece of info...the 1-6x is MOA and I want to move to Mils for commonality because it seems like most everyone in precision rifle shooting is on Mils.

Also, the money I would recoup from selling it would help soften the blow of buying the Razor (which is a non-trivial investment for me).

 

[Andy T]

If the scope is MOA/MOA then it wouldn't be much different from Mil/Mil - since you measure and dial in one system. It's just that when you go to Mil/Mil the linear values would change.

 

[CSTactical]

If you want to stick with Vortex, have you considered the AMG as well? I think that it would do just as well for your setup while saving a bit of weight over the 4.5-27.

 

[rjs5117]

If the scope is MOA/MOA then it wouldn't be much different from Mil/Mil - since you measure and dial in one system. It's just that when you go to Mil/Mil the linear values would change.

Realistically I'm seeing it more from a standpoint of commonality with other shooters/spotters who mostly seem to be running Mil reticles. I understand that from the standpoint of dialing in a ballistic solution from a computer, MOA and Mils are functionally the same.

If you want to stick with Vortex, have you considered the AMG as well? I think that it would do just as well for your setup while saving a bit of weight over the 4.5-27.

I am considering the AMG as well. On one hand, I'm not sure that I care about the weight savings because I don't intend to take this gun hunting or anything like that. On the other hand, I have read some reviews that say that it has all the performance of a gen II at 20oz less weight, so in that sense why not take the reduced weight? I'm somewhat embarassed to admit that the unique color of the gen II is appealing to me (the AMG is black), but its certainly not enought to be the deciding factor. It seems like the placement of the numbers on the windage holds on the AMG reticle would be better then the placement on the razor reticle, but again, I don't really have any experience shooting to those kinds of distances so I'm just guessing.

 

[patriot07]

If you want to stick with Vortex, have you considered the AMG as well? I think that it would do just as well for your setup while saving a bit of weight over the 4.5-27.

My thoughts exactly. AMG is a very nice scope and would make more sense on your current rifle than a 4.5-27 G2 and would still work great on your new rifle.

Otherwise, this is why I just shoot with iron sights on my cheap-ish AR and run a good scope on my bolt gun.

If you don't want to spend AMG-level cash, the SWFA 5-20 HD can be had for around $1k used and is also a decent 30mm option for short and long range. But if you're looking at the 4.5-27 for your next gun, then the 5-20 HD is probably lacking in mag range for your long-range wish list.

 

[Andy T]

Nothing embarassing about liking a color. There is a reason why I have a pantone S&B

 

[Fig]

“I regret buying a tier 1 scope”, said no serious marksman ever. They will last forever if treated properly, hold their value, and can live on different rifles. Go for it.

 

[rjs5117]

You guys have pretty much sold me on buying, so now I need to figure out what I need to mount it on an AR. Will I be able to buy a mount that will transfer over to a bolt gun? Or will I need something with a cantilever to get the proper eye relief?

 

[trob_205]

“I regret buying a tier 1 scope”, said no serious marksman ever. They will last forever if treated properly, hold their value, and can live on different rifles. Go for it.

This^ you won’t ever regret getting a nice piece of glass. I love my Gen 2 Razors!

 

[scudzuki]

You guys have pretty much sold me on buying, so now I need to figure out what I need to mount it on an AR. Will I be able to buy a mount that will transfer over to a bolt gun? Or will I need something with a cantilever to get the proper eye relief?

You'll need a cantilever mount for the AR.

 

[FishDr]

Love my Razor Gen 2. Never regret buying a top tier glass. However, 6x isn’t enough power for dot drills at 100 yards? I’m confused. Is there a reticle issue, like a horseshoe or a big dot ? If a standard reticle I’ve never felt more than 6x was needed at 100. Heck, I shoot 1000 with a 10x ( but admittedly, I do wish for more from that particular setup at times!).

 

[Pilotscrappy]

You should also check out Athlon cronus btr , many have said glass and turrets are on point and very comparable to the vortex. The vortex is an awesome scope tho, just a few more bux if ur on a budget.

Also I'm in the camp that says there is "no such thing as to much scope for a gun"
By that sucker and mount it up on your AR and enjoy it

 

[patriot07]

Love my Razor Gen 2. Never regret buying a top tier glass. However, 6x isn’t enough power for dot drills at 100 yards? I’m confused. Is there a reticle issue, like a horseshoe or a big dot ? If a standard reticle I’ve never felt more than 6x was needed at 100. Heck, I shoot 1000 with a 10x ( but admittedly, I do wish for more from that particular setup at times!).

The reticle alone is .15 mils thick. If you're shooting small dots, you really can't even aim for the center very well at 6x with a reticle that thick. The 1-6 wasn't created for precision shooting. Depending on the dot size, you may not be able to see the dot at all. Not a good way to aim.

I've never personally understood the 6x at 100 or 10x at 1000 mentality (not just from you - I've heard it from others as well). It's much, much easier to hit a target with more magnification than that, assuming your shooting position doesn't dictate the need for backing off mag to get a more forgiving eyebox.

Of course it depends what you're shooting too. Had a buddy who was talking about making hits at 500 with his 1-6 scope and I was pretty impressed. Asked him what size target he was shooting at and he said it was a 16" square. Well seriously, you ought to be able to hit that mess with iron sights. Let's shoot at a 1MOA or 1/2 MOA target and see if the magnification is a handicap.

 

[patriot07]

As to the OP, I'd find a lightweight, mid-priced 3-15, 4-16 type setup and shoot it for now. You don't know what type of scope you're going to want when you get a precision rifle. Make that decision at that time.

 

[rjs5117]

The reticle alone is .15 mils thick. If you're shooting small dots, you really can't even aim for the center very well at 6x with a reticle that thick. The 1-6 wasn't created for precision shooting. Depending on the dot size, you may not be able to see the dot at all. Not a good way to aim.

I've never personally understood the 6x at 100 or 10x at 1000 mentality (not just from you - I've heard it from others as well). It's much, much easier to hit a target with more magnification than that, assuming your shooting position doesn't dictate the need for backing off mag to get a more forgiving eyebox.

Of course it depends what you're shooting too. Had a buddy who was talking about making hits at 500 with his 1-6 scope and I was pretty impressed. Asked him what size target he was shooting at and he said it was a 16" square. Well seriously, you ought to be able to hit that mess with iron sights. Let's shoot at a 1MOA or 1/2 MOA target and see if the magnification is a handicap.

Yes, its certainly not that I can't hit a target at 100 yards with 6x (or even 1x), but its more that I'm trying to really spot my hits and analyze technique errors. For me, 6x isnt enough to reliably see the holes in the paper, nor is it enough for me to be able to hold, say, the left edge of a 0.75-1moa circle. I can put the reticle generally on the dot, but I'm trying to be more precise than that. Maybe my eyes are just garbage, but I just can't reliably see holes in paper at 100 yards with 6x. Also remember that I'm shooting 5.56, whereas most people in precision rifle are shooting at least a 6 if not 6.5+ so their holes are bigger than mine (inb4 obvious jokes). Basically, I'm trying to simulate what it would be like to shoot 1moa plates at several hundred yards, and in that case, having your reticle obscure the majority of the target seems to be suboptimal.

You'll need a cantilever mount for the AR.

Any recommendations? Right now I'm using the Aero SPR mount with my 1-6x, but I'm not sure if I would have enough vertical clearance for a larger objective scope. Even if no recommendation, can someone point me towards a guide for how to calculate what kind of mount you need for such an application?